Archive for January, 2008

Illegal AG & ‘mean sisters’ in judiciary close ranks

January 31, 2008

Fiji Government condemns ‘outside’ visit30 JAN 2008

Fiji’s interim Government has condemned a planned visit by the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute next month saying that a number of matters are needed to be ironed out in the judicial system first before they are welcome in the country. Interim Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said the visit will be welcomed but not now.

 “The reason we have taken this position is because there are number of matters before various tribunals, including constitutional cases in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the suspended Chief Justice’s Tribunal, the litigation filed by the suspended Chief Justice in relation to the Tribunal, the Fiji Law Society challenge of the Judicial Services Commission and the Magistrate’s inquiry which will all be prejudiced by an outside visit.” 

According to Sayed-Khaiyum the IBA was invited by a group of Fijian lawyers who are also involved in the litigation before the courts. The group will visit Fiji from the18th to 22nd of next month to examine the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in the country. 

“There is a danger that the examination of IBA or any other body at this point in time will trespass into areas which are specifically before the courts and which directly interfere with the independence of those courts.” Sayed-Khaiyum also questioned the intention of the IBA to only meet with Graham Leung, the former President of the Fiji Law Society. 

“Why have they not approached Devanesh Sharma who is the immediate past President or Chen Young who was the President during the 2000 crisis?” He also said the visit is instigated by people who represent the elite and who want to use the IBA to influence the judiciary and produce a particular result from the judiciary. 

***********************************************

Did the illegal AG actually utter the word ‘trespass’ when condemning the impending visit of the IBA team to Fiji to see for themselves the deteriorating and sorry state of affairs in Fiji’s judidiciary since the coup de’tat of 6/12/06? 

Did the incompetent big mouth illegal AG think ‘trespass’ when: Fiji’s Chief Justice Fatiaki was unceremoniously suspended without cause and much less proof;Principled Judges such as the Honourable Justices Coventry and Winter left our shores prematurely while the military junta eagerly stack Fiji’s Courts with their lackeys;

Did he think ‘trespass’ when the retirement home of the President of Fiji’s Court of Appeal, the Honourable Mr. Justice Ward was completely destroyed in an arson that todate has never been adequately investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice;

Did he think ‘trespass’ when High Court Judge, the shyster Nazhat Shameen plonked her fat ass on the Judicial Service Commission team in order to apppoint her best-friend Tony Gates as illegal Acting CJ;

Did he think ‘trespass’ when the illegal Police Commissioner Teleni, in an unprecedented move, interfered and tried to influence the presiding Judge in the High Court murder trial of Francis Kean (the illegal interim PM’s bro-in-law and incumbent Navy Commander);the list could go on and on.. but most importantly for the illegal AG,

did he think of his own eager TRESPASS on to the chair of the Attorney General of Fiji, a move that clearly showed his filthy hands in the grand coup-coup scheme of things and the zilch respect and commitment he holds for the Rule of Law and our Constitution;

And Ai-ass, please don’t go insulting the people’s intelligence by citing the appointing powers of the President whom the world over knows is sitting there only in matter but not in mind!

What a farce! Go peddle your lies elsewhere Ai-ass boy! 

Goneyalewa ni Viti

Temporarily closed while we brace for Hurricane Gene

January 29, 2008

May God protect us.

Take care, store emergency supplies and refrain from unnecessary venture out into the open as there are dangers of flood currents, flying objects and live broken power lines.

SV Team

Re-Igniting Old Spat

January 29, 2008

Ever since his release from the clutches of George Speight and the elite Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit, Mahendra Chaudhry has maintained, without adducing any shred of evidence, that the 2000 coup was heavily financed by Indo-Fijian businessmen opposed to the socio-economic reform programmes of his People’s Coalition Government and its determination to stamp out official corruption.

A number of these firms, the Fiji Labour Party claimed, were being investigated by the Chaudhry government for over-pricing goods brought under price control, for engaging in corrupt practices, and for tax evasion.

We, in the London-based Movement for Democracy in Fiji, were supplied by the FLP with a list containing the names of about 30 prominent companies and people who allegedly financed the overthrow and subsequent imprisonment for 56 days in Parliament of Mr Chaudhry and 42 members of his government. The list was meant to guide us in drawing up “smart sanctions” and punishing some of the country’s top businesshouses, defeated politicians, transport companies, distributors, retailers, and manufacturers who had allegedly, according to the FLP, committed the heinous crime of treason by aiding or abetting Speight’s coup. The individuals were to be punished for joining the military installed Laisenia Qarase led interim government after Commodore Frank Bainimarama declared that, “Mahendra Chaudhry will no longer come back as prime minister”. President Ratu Josefa Iloilo, who drove the final nail into the coffin of the Chaudhry government, had endorsed the Cdre’s declaration by dismissing Mr Chaudhry without testing his support on the floor of the House.

The list of names of the country’s leading businessmen as being implicated in the destabilisation process that led to the coup, we were assured, was the same names that Mr Chaudhry had forwarded to the Fiji police after the coup. We were later reassured of the identities of the alleged coup financiers when we personally met Mr Chaudhry and his entourage in an upmarket London hotel where he urged us to fight for the restoration of democracy, constitutionalism, human rights, and for him to be re-appointed as the rightful prime minister of Fiji.

Meanwhile, there were repeated allegations that businessmen such as Sir James Ah Koy and Hari Punja bankrolled the 2000 Speight coup. Both Ah Koy and Punja were forced to take out full-page advertisements in the newspapers in Fiji saying they had not financed George Speight. The Punjas protested: “Like any responsible business house … Punja and Sons Ltd knows the value of stable government having barely recovered from the upheavals of May 1987, and would do nothing to jeopardise their investments.”

In June 2001, Mr Chaudhry revealed at an FLP meeting in Lautoka that a leading businessman in Fiji had stated that it would cost $1million to get rid of the Chaudhry government. Mr Chaudhry stated that after the meeting of a statutory body board, the businessman, who was not named, and two other bureaucrats, were discussing how to get rid of the Chaudhry government when the businessman stated that it would cost only $1million. Although no name was revealed, the PCG’s official website named Mr Punja. It said the two others at the discussion included Mr Qarase. It said that after this meeting, Mr Qarase had begun a scathing attack on the elected Chaudhry government through the Senate. Most of the contents of Mr Qarase’s speech were without any factual foundation. Mr Qarase was also on Mr Speight’s list of cabinet members, the website claimed.

In light of the revelations by a former CRW soldier, Salesi Tuifagalele, in the trial of Josefa Nata and Ratu Timoci Silatolu, that he was told by coup leader, Speight, that finance for the May 19, 2000 coup would be provided by two leading business houses, Mr Chaudhry again raised the issue in Parliament in 2003: “Can the honourable Minister for Home Affairs inform this august House as to the current state of investigations against the businessmen associated with these companies and indicate when these investigations will be concluded? “ Again the PCG’s official website claimed that Mr Tuifagalele’s revelations made in the treason trial had come as no surprise to Mr Chaudhry since he made his statement to the police some 27 months before but what irked him (Mr Chaudhry) was that none of the people named by him had been questioned or investigated by the police. The companies named by Mr Tuifagalele, the website claimed, were among those who were widely reported immediately after the terrorist takeover of parliament to be allegedly implicated in financing the coup. The website reminded us that the very week Mr Tuifagale made the claims, Mr Chaudhry had written to the Director of Public Prosecutions renewing his allegations against businessmen, some indigenous chiefs and politicians implicated in the 2000 coup and asking why no action was being taken against them.

In Parliament, Mr Chaudhry had strongly criticised the practice of “selective justice” that the law enforcement authorities were pursuing. “There is a lot of dissatisfaction and indeed disquiet in many quarters about the fact that there seems to be selective prosecution of people responsible for instigating and executing the terrorist takeover of Parliament on May 19th 2000,” he told Parliament. “The public needs to be assured that the rich, the influential, and the powerful in our society will not escape the long arm of the law for their involvement, in whichever way it be - whether direct or indirect - in the heinous crime of treason. The public perception is one of selecting scapegoats and punishing them while the real culprits are let off because they have the money to buy their way out of this predicament or are close to the current government.” Mr Chaudhry questioned the three-year delay in concluding investigations surrounding complicity in the 2000 coup. “We have to clean up this nation of the rogue elements, be they in this House, in any other political arena, in the Great Council of Chiefs or the military,” he said. “This nation has paid too dear a price. Innocent people have [sic] label of a country with a coup culture”. He said Fiji would not be able to eradicate that “stigma” unless it showed the world it was serious about bringing “to justice all those who were responsible for this tragic event in our nation”.

The police confirmed that 10 Indo-Fijian businessmen were under investigation. The head of the police investigation unit Assistant Superintendent of Police (now Superintendent Waisea Tabakau, who recently ordered a Fiji TV reporter and a cameraman into a police van where they were interrogated and remained at the Valelevu Police Station for a couple of hours over the Rishikul school saga), said of the Indo-Fijian businessmen: “Some helped with hard cash financing the coup, while others provided food, groceries, bedding and transport.” The allegations forced the National Federation Party, the Fiji Chamber of Commerce, including the Suva Retailers Association, to hit out at the investigations. The retailers claimed that none of their 120 members were in any way involved with the coup plotters. It also called “baseless” the statements made by the FLP that some Taukei Fijian businessmen financed the coup. The NFP stated that the FLP should report the people involved to the police.

The FLP retorted that the names of those involved had been given to the police and that the police investigations were not proceeding at a desirable pace and that Police Commissioner Isikia Savua had been frustrating the investigations. The media also called on the FLP to prove the allegations but the party accused those calling on it to prove the allegations as another clear indicator that these bodies did not want any investigation of the involvement of the businessmen. “The alliance of these interest groups to protect a segment of the business community, which is highly corrupt and which has absolute contempt for the law, reveals the extent to which it will gang up to keep the criminals from being brought to justice,” its website stated. The FLP leader Mr Chaudhry reiterated that a full list of names of people who had financed the “terrorists” was available with the police.

Meanwhile, in June 2001, the PCG’s website also accused the Gujarati business community of collecting $62,000 at a fund-raising function held at Suva’s Defence Club for a political hopeful. The PCG website claimed: “Sources reveal that tickets costing $250 per person were sold for the function. The tickets were circulated within the business community in Suva and other towns. Most of the tickets were circulated within and bought by Fiji’s Gujarati community. The Gujarati community controls a large section of the wholesale, retail and manufacturing industries. It is believed that two major ethnic Indian businessmen, one in the food business and another in the hardware business, and both alleged to have been involved in financing the terrorists, were the masterminds behind the fundraiser.” The chief was also accused of being a party to the coup. The president of the Labasa Chamber of Commerce, Shiv Lal Nagindas, also joined the FLP in claiming that some prominent Gujarati businessmen must be investigated for financing the 2000 coup. But like the Punjas, the C J Patel group also vehemently denied the allegations levelled against the company in the High Court.

It is time Mr Chaudhry, who is part of the council to build a better Fiji and to help eradicate the coup culture in the country, proved his allegations. We are tired of the likes of him and Cdre Bainimarama taking us on a cheap ride with wild claims, without providing a shred of evidence.

In particular Mr Chaudhry who seven years ago convinced us in a London hotel of his allegations against the businessmen and urged us to fight for his political rights. If he cannot prove his allegations against the businessmen, he should be thrown out of the council sitting to end the coup culture in Fiji. What are his real motives, cynics will ask, in re-igniting a spat with business tycoon Hari Punja? Is it to settle some old scores?

Dr Victor Lal

Oh and by the way, in his effort to evade the barrage of questions last night, John Sammy deliberately or undeliberately revealed that it was Chaudary that invited him over to prepare a draft charter last year.

So this National Council for Building a Better Fiji and the People’s FLP/FMF Charter was indeed a Chaudary initiative.

Tobo tale tu o Van Damn!!!

Thought for the day

January 28, 2008

One of the main catch cries that drove Americans to take up arms against the King and the Old Country and culiminate to what became the United States War of Independence:

“No taxation without representation!”

Even our Indian Community are begining to see through the facade

January 28, 2008

For years we have been hearing the trash that comes out of this drunken Talatala’s (sacked) mouth. I had this tiny bit of sympathy for him when the Methodist Church rejected his application to be reinstated as a padre during the 2004 Church Conference, but boy aint I glad now that they had the wisdom of Solomon to reject that from this ‘wolf in sheep’s skin’.

To aspiring leaders, entertain them at your own risk! Remember who managed to worm his way through to become Rabuka’s private secretary when the former was PM. Leaked all the secrets to FLP and the rest was history. It was that bati gaption, Jone Dakuvula. Yabaki’s side kick!

Well here’s a letters to the editor in today’s Fiji Times:

CCF Stand

I found Akuila Yabaki’s reply towards Mere Samisoni (FT 24/01) disgraceful.

He stated that, As far as credibility goes, the CCF is of the view, that the SDL Government was as much racked with lack of credibility as the interim regime”.

I would like to enlighten the reverend that this interim regime is in action because of the power of the gun. No country, Constitution or religion accepts military rule.

If Mr Yabaki keeps on making such comments, it will become more evident that he is in same bandwagon as Ms Shaista Shameem. Please do not compromise your role as guardians of democracy for all citizens with your personal views.

Arvind Nadan
Suva

The 35 insignficants who are now trying to illegally chart our future

January 24, 2008
showimage1php.jpg
showimage2php.jpg
showimage3php.jpg
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR BUILDING A BETTER FIJI1. Bainimarama Commodore J. Voreqe - Co-Chair - Prime Minister Interim Government √2. Mataca Archbishop Petero - Co-Chair √

3. Arya Kamlesh-President Arya Pratindhi Sabha of Fiji √

4. Bole Mr Filipe-Minister for Education, National Heritage, Culture and Arts, Youth and Sports √

5. Bolobolo Ratu Meli-Chairman, Ra Provincial Council √

6. Chaudhry Mahendra-Minister for Finance, National Planning, Sugar Industry and Public Utilities (Water and Energy) √

7. Cokanasiga Joketani-Minister for Primary Industries apologies

8. Ganilau Ratu Epeli-Minister for Defence, National Security and Immigration √

9. Katonivere Ratu Wiliame Maivalili -Nominee Macuata Provincial Council √

10. Khaiyum Aiyaz-Sayed -Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Electoral Reform, Public Enterprises and Anti-Corruption. √

11. Koroi Jokapeci -President Fiji Labour Party √

12. Lacabuka Atunaisa -Chairman, Serua Provincial Council √

13. Lee Wah Selina- Social Worker Labasa √

14. Lewanavanua Ratu Jolame -Chairman, Lomaviti Provincial Council √

15. Luveni Dr Jiko -Minister for Health, Women and Social Welfare √

16. Maharaj Dewan Chand -President, Shree Sanatan Dharm Pratindhi Sabha √

17. Moore Peni -President, Women’s Action Committee √

18. Nailatikau Ratu Epeli-Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and Civil Aviation √

19. Nawalowalo Ratu Josateki-Chairman Kadavu Provincial Council √

20. Rajeshwar Kumar-President, Fiji Local Government Association √

21. Ralogaivau Ratu Filimoni-Chairman Bua Provincial Council √

22. Rewi Teatu-Chairman Rabi Council of Leaders √

23. Rickets Tom-Minister for Industry, Tourism, Trade and Communications √

24. Rigamoto Tarterani -Chairman Council of Rotuma √

25. Serulagilagi Josefa- Chairman Tailevu Provincial Council √

26. Silimaibau Rupeni-Rep Provincial Youth Forum of the Fiji Islands √

27. Singh Dijendra-Representative Fiji Girmit Council √

28. Sukanaivalu Netani-Minister for Lands, Mineral Resources and Environment √

29. Tarte Daryl-President Media Council (Fiji) Ltd √

30. Tevi Lorinne -President Fiji Council of Social Services √

31. Urai Daniel-President Fiji Trades Union Congress √

32. Whiteside Desmond-President Fiji Manufacturers Association √

33. Wong Patrick-Representative, Fiji Islands Hotel and Tourism Association √

34. Yabaki Rev. Akuila-President Citizens Constitutional Forum √

35. Mick Beddoes -A/ President, United People’s Party √

Out of the above list we can say that the only people who can really be legitimate representatives are:

  1. Chaudary who was elected in the last parliament but the again he has been tainted by his support of the Military coup as a member of an illegal government and
  2. Mick Beddoes elected in the last government
  3. The Rotuma and Rabi Council Chairman and the Provincial Council Chairman

The rest are unelected self seeking NGOS, insignificant opportunist and members of an illegal government, Mataca and the Pig Vore.

Enjoy the $100 a day illegal stolen from us the taxpayers while you can but you day will come…………… 

Coup Costs and every coup costs more

January 23, 2008

Dr Wadan Narsey has conducted an interesting mental experiment.

He has asked the question what would have happened if the coups of 1987
had not happened. And he has answered the question by taking the average
rate of growth in the years before the coup and imagining they extended it
into the future. Then he compares this to the actual growth achieved. The
difference is the cost of the 1987 coups.

He calculates the average loss per year to be almost nine and a half
billion dollars. That’s a huge price to pay. And it’s paid by everyone,
regardless of race or the industry they work in. The pie is smaller, so
everyone’s slice shrinks. The only exceptions are the coupsters who pay
themselves whatever they like and don’t have to answer to anyone.
^.o

The seven percent negative turnaround in the economy that the coup caused
has taken wealth from everyone. Any future growth will be from a lower
base. But the prospect of future growth is also growing fainter everyday.
The RBF has estimated that the economy will grow by 2% this year. But the
RBF has also made very clear that this growth will depend on the tourism
industry. Every other area of the economy will stagnate.

The tourism industry has told the Interim Government about their problems.
They are in a very competitive industry. They have to compete for every
dollar. At a time when the Fiji industry has to try to shake off the image
of an army controlling the streets and beating New Zealand citizens who
did business with the pre-coup government. Fiji has to compete much harder
for the tourist dollar. The tax burden which the 2008 budget imposed on
the tourism industry makes it harder than ever. At a time when Fiji’s
tourism
operators were already discounting heavily just to survive, the extra tax
delivered a severe blow that made it harder to attract visitors through
discounts.

Naturally, Chaudhry thinks the tourism operators are lying to him, just as
he would lie to them to serve his own interests.

Fiji Democracy Now

Disturbing Trend

January 22, 2008

2.jpg

$2 Nawalowalo registering for the People’s Charter Meeting

Tabana ni $100 per day rau!!

Have you noticed how slowly the tide is changing and our hopes in some of our leaders are slowly changing their stand on the IG and are now seen to be supporting it instead of making a principled stand till the end.

I was so proud of Beddoes for speaking up against the atrocities committed by the IG and even his opposition to the Charter. However, yesterday a completely different picture emerges and we see our hero there as part of the NCBBF.

CCF’s Akuila Yabaki was jumping from one side to the other all along and even though he cannot be trusted, we were glad that he continually raised some issues that concern us. Yesterday, he has truly showed us where he really stands.

Ratu Jolame Lewanavanua of Lomaiviti at one stage even challenged the IG to a gunfight on his stand against it, is now seen with his guns still in its holster but facing a different enemy (his own folks)

We could go on and dissect what each member of the NCBBF had said in the past and see their position today and all that we will be seeing is a very disturbing trend. We see how our Provincial councils have been against the Charter and all that the IG stands for but here at the new council we see that only Rewa has made a firm stand and is not represented.

I had a chill up my spine the other day when I read about SDL’s Peceli Kinivuwai saying that they will not join the council because it might spoil their chances in court of the pending cases against the interim regime. This tells me that they had been weighing the pros and cons of joining or not and concluded that they should not because of these pending cases. I would be more at home if they had said that they are not joining because this IG is illegal.

I know that there are a few good men out there who could be relied upon as our future leader and representatives.

The Methodist Church is making a stand and I just hope that they will remain that way till 2009. We have seen and heard some in their circles being influenced by the IG. We should observe them closely and pray that they will prevail.

All the above indications should really tell us the grim message that we really cannot put our trust in our representatives but as individuals we should make our stands. Our Chiefs, political leaders, friends, church members will turn away or give up for reasons known only to themselves. What we should know is that people’s decision can be easily influenced by money, position, peer pressure, threats, and many more things.

I would only like to encourage us not to be easily swayed like those who disappoint us but continue to make a brave stand against injustice.

I would end with these counsel of Paul to Timothy found in 2Timothy 3:1-5.

“ 1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” .

So friends, please accept the fact that people we rely on to carry the flag of freedom forward will begin to fall by the wayside. Let us make our stand with God Himself. We may go through much trouble in this journey but in the end victory is assured; not in this corruptible earth but in that world made new.

So persevere and be brave folks.

Vakatakilai.

 

CBUL Flaws and Issues

January 22, 2008

The warning by Francis Sokonibogi to take the IG to court is a welcome sign that at least someone in Fiji has the guts to stand up to Frank and Mahen on the contentious issue of Native Land.
 As a bit of background, there are two distinct ideas underlying the contrasting approaches taken to this problem by the Ousted and Interim Governments respectively. Both approaches hope to address the “problem” of idle and unproductive land. But they differ on the key assumptions behind their respective approaches. For instance, the ousted Government’s perception is that Native Land is lying (or becoming) idle because the uneconomic land rents payable under ALTA simply aren’t worth it for landowners. By contrast, the key assumption under the Committee for Better Use of Land (or its Land Use Commission forerunner) is twofold. Firstly that Native Land is idle due to a lack of ideas, appreciation on its possible beneficial use by potential tenants and; Secondly, a lack of confidence in their ownership rights and lack of understanding on lease benefits amongst landowners.
The respective solutions for these contrasting approaches are therefore: A. Better rentals through NLTA under the SDL approach vs.; B. More discussion and reassurance on land issues and projects under CBUL with the IG.
Your readers may already have their own ideas as to which of these solutions is more realistic, straight-forward or sustainable. But it is nonetheless worth looking at this issue from a free-market capitalist perspective, to get a view of things from what economists tell us is the bottom-line, world class standard for modern societies.
From a free market point of view, if you have a price point where either the buyer or the seller (or both) are unwilling to enter into a sales & purchase transaction, then the best and most efficient market solution to those circumstances is, by definition, for no sale to take place. So the assumption that something is wrong if land is not being leased out is unfounded. All you can say for sure is that the market has not yet reached, or has been prevented from reaching, its market-clearing price point. This is because in point of fact, the only definitively inefficient or undesirable market states from both a free-market and legal perspective, is when willing buyers and sellers are somehow prevented from entering into transactions with each other. Or alternatively, when unwilling willing buyers and sellers are somehow forced into entering into transactions with one another. Only then can you say that the markets aren’t working, and therefore will be unable to deliver economic efficiency.
In any free market, you will always have the possibility of willing or unwilling buyers and sellers. But they will sort themselves out at any particular price point as to whether they want to enter into transactions or not as the case may be. However in the case where the market is prevented from organising itself based on individual choices arising from reliable information, then you will have inefficiency by definition, and that’s when the market can be said to be dysfunctional.
So in terms of the willingness of the respective parties in the land stand-off to enter into leasing arrangements under current circumstances, the IG and SDL views are as follows:
1.   The SDL view is that Landowners are largely unwilling to lease due to the straightforward case that ALTA rents simply don’t offer sufficient economic compensation to them. In addition, many tenants who have shifted on to cash crops are unwilling to return to Sugar as it often simply isn’t worth it for them either. This view is simple and straightforward, and fits with economic theory on rational human behaviour and self-interest (as well as Occam’s razor);
2.   The IG view is that Landowner reluctance is the sole bottleneck, and is in any case not really reluctance at all. Rather, it is simply just irrational fear and misinformed ignorance. That means all that is needed to overcome this, and to allow economic market clearing of new leases, is to simply allay those landowner fears and misconceptions. Their vehicle for doing this is the CBUL forum where those issues will be overcome by A. Government “star power” presence and persistence! B. Intensive closed-door brain-storming and rehashing of possible investment propositions! C. And the simple “wearing down” of landowner reluctance by simple and continuous repetition of the Bainimarama/Chaudhry/Yabaki/ Mara/Ganilau point of view, irrespective of landowner concerns.
This IG view is unsatisfactory and irrational for a number of reasons. First of all it is offensively paternalistic in that is assumes that anyone who does not share the IG view on land is automatically misinformed or ignorant. It is also effectively racist in that it focuses largely on Fijian landowners (or politicians) as the cause of this. But this IG attitude is not only fatal arrogance, it is also a fundamental misunderstanding of market dynamics. Leaving aside the issue of who is actually ignorant of what in respect of native lease rentals, the IG clearly makes the wrong assumption that markets must operate on correct information (which of course, only the IG recognizes). That notion is fundamentally wrong because markets do not operate on perfect information - they operate on free information. However it is the operation of the markets on that information over time that then “sifts” it and identifies the real “truth” from empirical transaction experience. So after two 30-year terms of ALTA leases, landowners have come to their own inescapable conclusion that the rental terms are simply not good enough.
Furthermore, any reading of John Davies’ academic papers on ALTA will show that it is the IG, and not landowners, who are misinformed and ignorant regarding the economic value of ALTA leases to landowners. So landowners not only have their own experiences to tell them that ALTA rents are too low, they also have academically rigorous proof of it! Whether one pegs ALTA rents at 2% of land revenue potential under Sugar (Davies/Gallimore), or at 5% (Davies/Kurer), the simple fact remains that both figures are the lowest in the world amongst all Sugar producing countries (while Sugar itself is also the lowest yielding of all commodity crops, thus putting Fiji landowners at the bottom of the heap of the world’s lousiest economic crop this side of grass - the worst of the worst). So any objective, arms-length analysis of this state of affairs anywhere in the world is that landowners would actually be irrational and “misled” to accept such lease conditions – not the other way around as insisted by the IG.
 The reasons for that relates specifically to the area of opportunity cost over the term of an ALTA lease. The CCF is making a big hue and cry over the fact that landowners are “losing out” on income now that leases have expired. But that is not true since the opportunity cost of the 30 year term of an ALTA lease has not been factored in to the CCF’s short-sighted “here and now” analysis.
 For instance, if one understands from the Davies analysis that ALTA rents are currently about 50% lower than ideal, that then gives landowners up to 15 years to “hold out” for those better rents on a 30-year lease term timeframe and STILL BE REVENUE-NEUTRAL (ie. Earn just as much money) within the lease term (not to mention that every lease for their children and descendants ever after will be benchmarked at similarly better terms)!!
Such better rents are not a faint hope either, as anyone who has the faintest understanding of poker-playing or deal-negotiating will instantly understand. With deep-pocketed Government obviously DESPERATE to have leases renewed in support of the Sugar Industry, landowner advisors will know that they have very good cause to expect Government to “come to the rescue” and soon, in order to subsidize better land rentals. So holding out is entirely rational economic behaviour that the markets will naturally reward with the economic windfall of better rents and a more sustainable industry basis.
Another development that landowners need to factor into their “holdout” strategy is the “friendliness” of the present and post-elections Governments respectively. With a high likelihood of an SDL return at the next elections (IG “cheating” notwithstanding), landowners have even more reason to “hold out” for a more sympathetic and trustworthy Government to oversee the solution to Fiji’s land lease problems. By contrast, Frank and Mahen’s atrocious public track records in the areas of basic trustworthiness, political bias, and even their basic understanding of the issues at stake in the Sugar Industry, is sufficient to nullify any possible credibility accruing to the CBUL from the presence of the NLTB and Provincial Councils. It is really a “no contest” from a landowner point of view in terms of waiting for a more friendly and trustworthy Government under a more accountable democratic set-up. At least under those democratic circumstances landowners can not only decline any substandard deal immediately, but they can also express their displeasure at the ballot box if they find themselves unhappy with any deal later on, too.
Another good pointer in all this is the number of farmers who have left Sugar for cash crops. They are refusing to return to Sugar, not because of politics, but rather because they simply make more money under better terms with cash crops. Not only does that cast further doubt on the future of the Sugar Industry, it is also a pointer to landowners as to where the real agricultural money lies – not in meagre ALTA rents, and not even in Sugar farming itself. But rather it is in market cash crops! So surely it would be better in those circumstances for landowners to just “tei dalo” on their own land for a year or two to fund themselves while they wait out a better Government and/or better lease rents on their excess land.
Fear-mongers and IG lobbyists may advise that even a one-year delay could threaten the entire Sugar Industry. But if the industry is so close to “tanking” already then SURELY it is better for landowners NOT to tie their land up in leases for the next 30 years now when they have no future! Moreover, the responsibility for “saving” the Sugar Industry is Government’s, not landowners’! Surely it is finally now time to break out of the historical “mental slavery” notion that it is solely landowners’ responsibility to make the lion-share sacrifice to support the Sugar Industry, or any other industry that requires large tracts of land. Maybe Frank and Mahen won’t be able to manage it, but surely landowners have to at least break themselves out of those mental chains now!
To conclude, I would just like to touch again on the point of the conceited and self-absorbed IG assumption that the reason landowners do not share the IG’s views or perspectives on ALTA rents can ONLY be because landowners are misinformed, or even ignorant. Maybe some are misinformed – but every last one of the many (most of whom aren’t renewing leases)? Did none of them get lawyers or accountants or economists to advise them? Or did their advisors advise them to renew but they ALL refused? But what if landowner reluctance is not because of misunderstanding? What if it is in fact from simply expressing their own well-enough-informed opinions or preferences on what they want regarding their own property, (something they are perfectly entitled to do)! How long will the IG take to decide which is which? After years of Fijians rejecting Frank’s political overtures, he still hasn’t learned why! Fijians didn’t respond to his post-2003 attacks on the SDL. They didn’t respond to his Truth & Justice campaign. And they are not responding to his Military Charter! How long will it take him to figure out that that was not because they didn’t hear him, or didn’t understand him, or couldn’t perceive his aspirations? How long will it take for him to understand that most Fijians simply view things differently to him, and they were simply expressing that as they are perfectly entitled to do in a democracy?
By the same token, how long will it take for Frank and Mahen to accept landowner views on their own land? How long will landowners have to keep repeating themselves before Frank finally “gets it”? How long will the IG keep the CBUL running over the top of landowner concerns before they accept landowner views are their own, and not those of politicians? How long will it take for them to figure out the reason that landowners support the SDL position is because democracy means that if the SDL wants Fijian votes, it must support and advocate landowner views, opinions and values?
Bottom-line democracy is about respecting the Will of the People (ie. the opinions of the majority). It is also about respecting the property rights of citizens over their own property.
It is not possible to respect or appreciate these principles if you can’t, at a very fundamental level, respect other peoples’ opinions. How can the IG and its cronies talk about meaningfully about “true democracy” if they can’t even do that? And then how can we accept any recommendations from them on society or the future (in the NCBBF for example) when they lack this fundamental capability?

Jean d’Ark

Hands off our land

January 22, 2008

ratu_sukuna.jpg

An article from Fiji’s Daily Post

Talk to us first, says Indigenous body

AN indigenous group says they will take the Interim Government to court over the legality of the formation of a Committee on Better Utilisation of Land (CBUL) which was approved by the interim Cabinet in its first sitting this week.

The Fiji Indigenous Ownership Rights Association (FIORA) says the establishment of the CBUL as a legislation is illegal and that the regime is yet again practicing a top-down approach while making decisions for the nation.

Association secretary, Francis Waqa Sokonibogi said the regime wants to continue what the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) was doing over the past 60 years, only this time shifting from the NLTB to another “illegal body”, under the international law.

The association which compromises 60 representatives from landowning units (mataqali), have strongly opposed the new land body which they believe will be making decisions on how they had to utilise their land. The only International Law that binds the Fiji Government Sokonibogi said is the ILO Convention Law Number 169, Article 6 (2).

It states: “No form of force or coercion shall be used in violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people’s concerned, including the rights contained in this Convention.” He believes the formation of this land body is another of the Interim Government’s action to make decisions for the native landowners.

“What the Interim Government has done is just perpetuate the Colonial top-down policy by deciding for the Fijian people on what to do with their land,” Sokonibogi said.

Sokonibogi said it was only correct if the Government consults with the native owners before any legislation is passed. But this, they failed to do, including the NLTB.

“The new committee (CBUL) body in itself is illegal, not mentioning the legality of the Interim Government,” he said. The interim Cabinet had based its decision on a submission by the interim Prime Minister, Commodore Frank Bainimarama, on Tuesday.

The formation of this committee has raised eyebrows recently and there were criticisms, especially by indigenous bodies and political parties. Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewevanua leader and ousted PM, Laisenia Qarase, had earlier said for the interim regime to resolve the problems of agricultural land rather than land usage.

Bainimarama said the committee came about as a result of a resolution by the interim Cabinet in 2007, that the Ministry of Fijian Affairs teamed up with the NLTB and the Provincial Administration to approach landowners regarding ALTA leases that had or were about to expire.

Sokonibogi further argued that what the regime did was legislate the land body to look into the utilisation of Fijian land which was illegal.

“In fact, it has been gazetted that the land outside of ALTA will be divided by them (interim government) through the NLTB and the zoning of the area will be dependant on them, not by the native landowners. This is illegal under any Convention, even under the Human Rights Bill in the Fiji Constitution.”

FIORA with other associations are going to seek legal right to take the matter to court in litigation to find out the truth of the legality of this committee.

“We not going to make another coup but we are going to take this Interim Government to court – to decide who is right and who is wrong,” Sokonibogi said.

He said Fijians could make more money out of their land by farming and selling or exporting their produce rather than depend on the lease money which was way less.

He added that the whole exercise by the regime was a masquerade of consultation.

Sokonibogi said there were thousands of acres of freehold land lying idle next to areas like Deuba and so fourth.

“That’s freehold land. Why don’t they (government) deal with that freehold land and make it productive? Why are they not touching vacant freehold land instead, they are coming to take our land? Sokonibogi questioned.

“Initially freehold land was done for national interest and not the native land. Now they are claming it for the national interest by leasing it out.”

He added that the government’s intention was to pressure the native land to be alienated from its rightful owners, the Fijians.

“The native land is for the benefit for the Fijian people. If this is not the case then its illegal, under the trust act – must be for the benefit of the beneficiaries. They should hold discussions with the grassroots people and that they never did.”